The news last week included an item about a United Methodist "trial" of a clergy member living a lesbian lifestyle. The "jury" of clergy convicted her in a vote of 11-1 and has removed her from the clergy. Members of her home church have stated publicly that the would want her to continue her duties as a layman, minus the sacraments that are reserved for clergy.
I don't particularly have a comment on the specific case or the woman who was on trial. She makes her own choices about her lifestyle and I'm sure that she is a fine and caring person who wants to minister to people in a sacrificial manner. Admirable. I have no desire, and certainly no standing not being a member of that church, to judge her.
I do think, however, it was inevitable and necessary that the hierarchy of her church, to whom she is completely accountable, to judge her by the standards of the church doctrine as they have articulated it through decades of working that question out against scripture and their consciences. I applaud the church for standing on their doctrine and not retreating. And, I don't have much doubt about how John Wesley - founder of the Methodist denomination - might have decided on the question.
My only comment on the case revolves around a statement made by her lawyer who argued that the important issue was whether or not all members of the Methodist Church, regardless of status, had equal rights.
This statement cuts right to the heart of the divide between liberals and conservatives. One of the definitions that I've heard and applied on the question is that liberals emphasize group and rights/entitlements where conservatives emphasize individuals and responsibilities. In that light, liberals have made enormous inroads in the last 40 years in focusing public debate related to issues in the news on solely on "rights".
This focus on "rights" over responsibilities is evident in this case and in this lawyer's statement. Let me make the following points:
- Not every member of a church has a "right" to be a member of the clergy. Clearly the clergy is a set-apart subset within the body that is charged with the responsiblity moral leadership. In short, there is on purpose a difference between the clergy and the laymen (and laywomen) of a church. The responsibility-based concept of being "worthy" of being a member of this select group has been lost in our generation to a legion of lawyers litigating "rights".
- Any church has the authority to define qualifications for its clergy. Most do so in published doctinal manuals.
- It is the obligation of the church authorities to test candidates for clergy and to choose only the worthy. This is what is due to the flock, that they are led by worthy leaders.
- It is also the obligation of the church authorities to uphold those standards and to discipline and/or expel clergy members who fail in their duties. Again, no one is ever "entitled" to be a clergy member. There is no tenure in the church. Churches who fail to uphold their standards relating to doctrine, and who pander excessively to the "rights" of individuals as did the Catholic Church with their epidemic of pedophile priests, fail the membership of the church to the harm of the church.
In this case, the United Methodist church had a traditional doctrinal stance that an open homosexual lifestyle is incompatible with excercising the select sacrificial leadership responsibility of the clergy. Not everyone will agree with that stance, but then again membership in the church is a voluntary association. If you don't agree then join a different church.
And, unexpectedly I might add, they upheld their own doctrine in the face of withering publicity about the "rights" of one person to violate the standards and still maintain the role of leadership. They were resisting political correctness in its purest form. I applaud the Methodists for resisting it. And I wish the woman in question well in her life as a member of the church and in her service as a layman.
No comments:
Post a Comment